A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; nevert hel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and c o n d itio n s o f

1 0 th C ir . R . 3 6 .3 . 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju ly14,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. V E R N W . S O R E N S O N , ind iv id u a lly and as per s onal r epr es ent at i ve of the E s t at e O f O l i vene C. Sor ens on,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t, and PA W N EE PR O PER TY PRO J EC TS, IN C .; C IT IC O R P M O R T G A G E , IN C .,

D efen dan t s. N o. 05- 4292 ( D. C. No . 2 : 9 6 - CV- 2 2 6 - DB)

( D . U t ah)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HA RTZ , AN DE RS ON , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es.O li v en e C . S o ren so n d ied d u ri n g the c o u rse o f th e d istri ct co u rt 1 p ro c e e d in g s . C i t i corp M or t gage, I nc. w as al s o named as a defendantbeca us e the U ni t ed 2 S ta te s b e lie v e d th a t it m a yh a v e h a d a n in te re s t in th e re a l p ro p e rt y . -2- V e rn W . S o re n so n , o n h is o w n b e h a lf a n d o n b e h a lf

o f th e e sta te o f

h is w i fe, O l i vene C . Sor ens on ( Sor ens ons ) , appea l s fr om j udgm ent s of the di s tr i ct 1 c o u r tfo ru n p a i d fe d e r a l i n c o me t a x e s , i n t e r e s t , p e n a l t i e s , a n d fe e s . W e a ffi r m. Backg r ound I n 1987, t he Sor ens ons agr eed t o the entryof a de ci s i on i n the U ni t ed St at es T ax C our tt hatt heyw er e l i abl e fort ax def i ci enci es fort ax y ear s 1977 t hr ough 1981. Shor t l ybefor e the entryof the t ax court ’ s deci s i on, t he Sor ens ons t r ans ferr ed s om e r eal pr opert yt o defe ndantPaw nee Pr opertyPr oj ect s , I nc. T hen i n 1989, t ax l i abi l i t i es of $12, 536 w er e as s es s ed aga i ns tM r . Sor ens on fort ax y ear 1984. I n 1995, t he I nt ernal R evenue Ser vi ce a s s es s ed the def i ci enci es for1977 th ro u g h 1 9 8 1 , a t $ 9 5 ,9 9 9 ; a s to th e 1 9 8 4 a s s e s s m e n t, $ 7 ,1 7 3 re m a in e d u n p a id . I n 1996, t he U ni t ed St at es fi l ed a c om pl ai nti n di s tr i ctcourtt o ( 1) r educe t he unpai d t axes , penal t i es , and fe es t o j udgm ent ; ( 2) s etas i de the tr ans ferof r eal p r o p e r t y t o P a w n e e ; a n d ( 3 ) fo r e c l o s e t h e t a x l i e n s a g a i n s tt h e p r o p e r ty. 2 I n 1997, t he di s t r i ctcour tgr ant ed the U ni t ed St at es ’ unoppos ed mot i on for par t i al s um m aryj udgm entconce rni ng the unpai d t axes . T he ca s e w as admi ni s t r at i vel ycl os ed i n 1999, s ubj ectt o a mot i on t o r eopen.-3-

M or e than thr ee y ear s l at er , the Sor ens ons fi l ed a mot i on t o vaca t e the di s t r i ctcourt ’ s 1997 or derforpart i al s um m aryj udgm ent , and ar gued that( 1) they w e re n o t “ s u bje c t to th e ju ri s d ic tio n o f th e C o rp o ra te U n ite d S ta te s o f A m e ri c a ,” R . , D oc. 22 at4; ( 2) t he j udgm entw as bas ed on “fal s e and f r audul ententr i es w hi ch cr eat e the appe ar ance of l i abi l i ty , ” id . at 2 ; an d (3 ) th e yw e re n o t su bjec t to the fed era l t ax law s. T h e d istri ct co u rtd en ied th e m o ti o n , an d this co u rt di s m i s s ed the Sor ens ons appea l beca us e ther e w as no fi nal j udgm enti n the ca s e. In th e m ea n ti m e, th e S o ren so n s filed a co m p lai n t i n U tah s tat e c o u rt s eeki ng t o canc el t he fe der al t ax l i ens . T he s ui tw as r emoved t o fede r al di s tr i ct c o u rt, w h e re it w a s d ism iss e d fo r la c k o f su bjec t m a tter ju risd ictio n . O n a p p e a l, th is c o u rt a ffir m e d th e o rd e r d is m is s in g th e c o m p la in t. So re n so n v . O ’Ne ill , 7 3 F . A p p ’x 3 4 1 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) (un p u b li sh ed ). E v en tually , the U n it ed S tat es fil ed a m o ti o n to d ism iss i ts l ien fo rec losu re c la im a n d m o v e d fo r e n tr yo f fin a l ju d g m e n ts w ith re s p e c t to th e ta x a s s e s s m e n ts . T hi s t i m e the Sor ens ons di d obj ectand ar gued that( 1) ther e w as no evi dence of anyl aw ful as s es s m ent s agai ns tt hem; ( 2) theyw er e nots ubj ectt o the author i tyof t he U ni t ed St at es ; ( 3) t he U ni t ed St at es l acke d the pow ert o fi l e not i ces of fe der al t ax l i ens w i t houta pr i orcour tor der ; and ( 4) cr i m i nal char ges s houl d be br ought againstt he law y ers for the U nit ed S t at es based o n the al l eged fi l i ng of fal se do cum ents .-4-

T he di s t r i ctcour tent er ed an or deri n M ar ch 2005 thatgr ant ed the U ni t ed S ta te s ’ m o tio n fo r e n tr yo f f in a l ju d g m e n ts a n d d is m is s e d its fo re c lo s u re c la im . Fi nal j udgm ent s w er e ent er ed aga i ns tV ern W . Sor ens on and the Est at e of O l i vene C . Sor ens on on O ct ober12, 2005. T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. D i s cus s i on T he Sor ens ons ’ fai l ur e t o r es pond t o the U ni t ed St at es ’ m ot i on forpart i al s um m aryj udgm ent“does not , byi t s el f, m ake s um m aryj udgm entpr oper . ” Neal v. L e w is , 414 F. 3d 1244, 1248 ( 10th C i r . 2005) . T hei rbur den t o r es pond i s not t r i gger ed unl es s t he movi ng par t yhas m eti t s i ni t i al bur den of pr oduct i on under F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 6 (c ). Ne a l, 414 F. 3d 1248. I n tur n, w e r evi ew t he di s tr i ct cour t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm entde novo, “vi ew i ng the r ecor d i [n] t he l i ght m os tfavor abl e t o t he part yoppos i ng s um m aryj udgm ent . ” Id . a t 1 2 4 7 . “Sum m aryj udgm enti s appr opr i at e i f ther e i s no genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac t and the movi ng par t yi s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ” Id. C o n stru in g M r. S o re n so n s p ro se b rie f lib e ra lly , h e a p p e a rs to a rg u e th a t t her e w as nota s uffi ci entfac tual bas i s t o s uppor tt he di s tr i ctcourtor derfor par t i al s um m aryj udgm ent . W e di s agr ee. I n i t s or dergr ant i ng part i al s um m aryj udgm ent , t he di s tr i ctcourtfound that the m o ti o n w as su p p o rt ed b ya c erti fica te of asse ssm en ts, w h ich it sai d are “pr es um pt i vel ycorr ectevi dence of a t axpay er ’ s l i abi l i ty . ” R . , D oc. 19 at2. T he cour tt hen found thatt he Sor ens ons fai l ed t o pr oduce a nyevi dence t o r ebutt he-5-

pr es um pt i on of l i abi l i t yes t abl i s hed bythe ce r t i fi cat e. M r . Sor ens on fai l s t o poi nt t o anyt hi ng i n t he r ecor d t hatw oul d demonstr at e a ge nui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac t to p re c lu d e su m m a ryju d g m e n t, no r h a s h e c ited a n yc a se , sta tu te, o r re g u latio n to pr ove a mi s appl i cat i on of l aw . T her efor e, w e affi r m the court ’ s or dergr ant i ng p a rtial s u m m a ryju d g m e n t. W e l i kew i se affi rm t he d i stri ctcou rt ’s order grant i ng the U nit ed S t at es’ m o tio n fo r e n tryo f

fin a l ju d g m e n ts. In th e d istric t co u rt a n d o n a p p e a l, M r . Sor ens on cl ai m s t hathe and hi s w i fe a r e s over ei gn ent i t i es bey ond the r eac h of the l aw s of U ni t ed St at es , and thatthe governm enthas no j ur i s di ct i on t o t ax th e irp ri v a te p ro p e rt y . W e h a v e c o n s is te n tly reje c te d s u c h a rg u m e n ts . See, e. g. , Lonsdal e v. Uni t ed Stat es , 919 F. 2d 1440, 1447- 48 ( 10th C i r . 1990) ( hol di ng that t axpay erchal l enge t o t he governm ent ’ s author i tyt o l evyt axes i s bas el es s and frivo lou s). T h e j u d g me n t s o f

t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ta r e AF F I RMED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

T i m othyM . T ym kovi ch C i r cui tJ udge